Why do atheists insist that atheism is a 'non-belief'?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Galileo

Okay, then. I will cheerfully oblige.

Do you think that Newton just blindly accepted the Judeo-Christian God as expected by his parents and his society?

Yes, pretty much.

I fairly sure you know that his religious beliefs were … uh … unorthodox. But he didn’t conclude: Hmmm … there’s no evidence for God – none whatsoever – so therefore God doesn’t exist.

And that’s a shame, but of course we don’t (and can’t) know what conclusions Newton privately drew. We can observe based on some strong evidence that if he (and not only him - just about anyone in that time and place) publicly spoke about how the lack of evidence for God implied there was no God, that person could easily face censure, loss of social standing, possible criminal prosecution… certainly no positive results.

He spent a lot of time on the subject, and I’m sure you’ll agree that he was exceptionally intelligent – much more intelligent than theists today. Why did he continue to believe in God? Was it just because he was trapped in an epistemological prison created by contemporary religionists?

Yes, pretty much.

Newton? The guy who formulated the laws of motion, universal gravitation, and optics, and *created *calculus? Newton? The guy who practically became a god because predictions based on his “laws” were “perfect”?

I don’t know who considers Isaac Newton practically a god, but his genius in mathematics and physics aside, he was still indoctrinated from childhood and surrounded throughout his life by constant reinforcement of the Judeochristian belief system. Sure, he dabbled in alchemy later in life, playing around with finding some variations, but it doesn’t surprise me at all if he could never quite get to the state where he realized the whole thing was a big waste of time.

Newton was wrong about a lot of things. But was he unreasonable in his belief in God? I don’t think so.

He was told from childhood to believe a certain thing, so he did through his adult life. His behaviour doesn’t strike me as unreasonable but merely a consequence of psychological conditioning.

This issue is completely separate from the issue of whether or not it is reasonable to believe in God in the first place, of course.

Does that help?I see that you have confused “science” with “technology”.

No, I have not. I merely picked a plausible real-world example, but if you want to incorrectly label this as confusion, be my guest. I could as easily have described a person who denies that wolverines exist, then must psychologically reconcile the injuries received in a wolverine attack. There is no technology aspect to this example but merely the same denial of empirical evidence, exactly as with the person who is shocked by exposed wires but denies the commonly-accepted explanation.

What are the negative consequences for the average person who believes in geocentrism, besides possible ridicule? On a day-to-day basis, what difference does it make how old the universe is? Does it matter how species developed? Not really. But if you think that God was awesome enough to create “the whole world”, then that belief becomes a key part of person’s thinking and actions.

Sure, and for 90% of the population, it doesn’t really matter. Then there’s the 1% of scientists who are studying the questions carefully and sometimes they come up with hypotheses and sometimes practical applications that benefit us all. then there’s the other 9% of the population who are religious fanatics who deny the efforts of the 1% and can occasionally influence the 90% to bias laws their way and hamper the efforts of the 1%.

Note- percentages completely made up.

Yes, it’s possible for an atheist to know practically nothing about current science. But, then, why do atheists bring up science so often in discussions about religion? I say because it matters, and because it is a core “belief” of educated atheists.

Sure, but please don’t be casual about the use of the word “belief” to the point where “belief” in electromagnetism has as much weight and should be given as much respect as “belief” in Noah’s Ark.

Personally, I wish the words “belief” (and “faith”) were not so flexible in their definitions, to the point where one can say:

“I believe in the healing power of Jesus” and “I believe gravity will continue to work tomorrow in much the same way it is working today.” The underlined word in the second sentence should be something different, something stronger, something less prone to arguments based on vapid word-game playing.

I can’t speak for all atheists, of course, but I’d be happy to leave science out of religious discussions. I just can’t trust the religious people to respond in kind - enough of them are determined to forcibly wedge religion into science discussions that my best response is to call their entire belief system into question. The hardcore religious types won’t be affected, of course, but at best I can hope to sway enough of the 90% to withdraw their support and re-relegate the religious nuts back to their politically impotent fringe.

[Galileo]

@Czarcasm

As long as you give us the definition of “belief” that you are referring to each time you use it, we’ll be fine. I’m getting mighty damn tired of religious “gotcha” word games:
“I believe I’ll have another beer.”
“Aha!! you do have beliefs!”
Now, do you accept that the use of “belief” when it comes to religion has very little to do with it’s use in every day situations?

Thank you for identifying your concern about “gotcha” word games. I think that’s one reason why I’ve encountered resistance in this thread. I am not playing any religious games because I am not religious.

When I talk about “belief” I am not talking about things like “I believe the Yankees will win tonight”.

I’m talking about core beliefs, values, or principles.

For example, the values from Atheist Alliance International that I quoted in a previous post, and which include:

[ul][li]Our ethics and values are evidence-based. We rely on what we can sense and measure in the natural world. We make our conclusions based on the best evidence, and change our conclusions accordingly as new evidence becomes known.[/li][li]We believe in modernity and progress and the ability of humankind to develop a better world based on reason.[/li][li]We believe that ethics and morality evolve over time as we better understand our world and the consequences we cause in it.[/li][/ul]

[Czarcasm]

Doesn’t pertain to me at all.
I’m a free-range atheist.

[SmartAlecCat]

I’m fine with these.

belief =
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Working from 3:
a) “I believe gods do not exist.” Based on my examination of the evidence, I have become convinced in the truth of the statement “Gods do not exist.”
b) “I don’t believe god exists.” Based on my examination of the evidence, I have become convinced that the statement “God exists” is false.
c) “I believe George Washington was the first president of the U.S.” Based on my examination of the evidence, I have become convinced that the statement “George Washington was the first president of the U.S.” is true.

[Galileo]

@Bryan_Ekers

Yes, pretty much.
…
And that’s a shame, but of course we don’t (and can’t) know what conclusions Newton privately drew. We can observe based on some strong evidence that if he (and not only him - just about anyone in that time and place) publicly spoke about how the lack of evidence for God implied there was no God, that person could easily face censure, loss of social standing, possible criminal prosecution… certainly no positive results.

Seems like you don’t know much about Newton’s religious views. Here’s a primer: Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia

I don’t know who considers Isaac Newton practically a god, but his genius in mathematics and physics aside, he was still indoctrinated from childhood and surrounded throughout his life by constant reinforcement of the Judeochristian belief system. Sure, he dabbled in alchemy later in life, playing around with finding some variations, but it doesn’t surprise me at all if he could never quite get to the state where he realized the whole thing was a big waste of time.

Actually, it seems that you don’t know much about Newton. Too bad.

He was told from childhood to believe a certain thing, so he did through his adult life. His behaviour doesn’t strike me as unreasonable but merely a consequence of psychological conditioning.

Wow! Newton was so weak psychologically that he couldn’t overcome his indoctrination. And, yet, today, millions of (intellectually inferior) theists raised in highly religious communities become atheists. Newton was such a wimp!

No, I have not. I merely picked a plausible real-world example, but if you want to incorrectly label this as confusion, be my guest.

An example that nothing to do with what I said. You want to have your own little monologue? Go ahead.

Note - percentages completely made up.

Noted.

Sure, but please don’t be casual about the use of the word “belief” to the point where “belief” in electromagnetism has as much weight and should be given as much respect as “belief” in Noah’s Ark.

Or as much weight as a straw man.

I just can’t trust the religious people to respond in kind - enough of them are determined to forcibly wedge religion into science discussions that my best response is to call their entire belief system into question.

I see that you (and Czarcasm) and some other atheists on this board are concerned about someone forcibly wedging a religious idea into a discussion. From my viewpoint, you come across as a bit paranoid. You are treating me as if I’m a fundamentalist YEC Christian. Your skills of perception are not finely honed.

[Voyager]

@Galileo

Yes, it’s possible for an atheist to know practically nothing about current science. But, then, why do atheists bring up science so often in discussions about religion? I say because it matters, and because it is a core “belief” of educated atheists.

Here is my explanation for this. Religions does three things: provide a moral code, provide meaning, and provides an explanation for the world.
For the first, even if you can demonstrate using ethics that a tenet of religion is ethically untenable, a postulate of religion is that the creator dictates morals. So, you can’t argue against god on an ethical basis.
The second part is even less amenable to argument.
So that leaves us the third. Remember, the Bible begins with a scientific statement about the origin of the universe. While it is now popular to say that the Bible is not a science book, that is how the ancients saw it, as much as they got the concept at all.
God was a good explanation for things that seemed otherwise impossible to explain. As I’ve said, Tom Paine specifically justified his belief in a deistic god using science.
Things started to fall apart in the late 18th century as the age of the earth appeared to be much greater than what the Bible said, but this wasn’t all that fundamental to belief, and there were few inerrantists running around.
What was fundamental was special creation, and that we were made in God’s image. That is why Darwin has such a bigger impact than a million-year-old earth.
So science was the thing that enabled us to not believe without having to evade a lot of “how” questions.
You see that in this very thread. magellan01 believes in a Creator god due to causality. He claims that everything we’ve seen is caused. Now, this isn’t true at the quantum level (he rejects this statement) but if somehow was compelled to accept it, he’d have to give up the one reason for god-belief he has. He has already given up the moral argument, and I’m not sure about the purpose one.
You see this even

ETA: Religion in science discussions does not imply YECs. magellan01 is about as far from a YEC as a believer can get, but his argument is basically scientific.

[Galileo]

Voyager, I agree with your explanation. You’ve pretty much summed up my position.

Thanks.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Galileo

Seems like you don’t know much about Newton’s religious views.

Don’t feel you have to waste your time trying to condescend to me. I know enough about Newton to know your original point was useless. That an intelligent person believed in God says nothing about the reasonableness of that belief, especially if that intelligent person didn’t come to that belief through intelligently-applied reason, and Newton certainly did not, so the whole appeal to authority is moot.

I daresay if there was something tangible to the whole God thing, Newton would be a likely candidate to find it, since he was highly intelligent and clearly disciplined enough to put the necessary efforts into his research.

Wow! Newton was so weak psychologically that he couldn’t overcome his indoctrination.

I don’t know why this strikes you as a bold statement. He was human, and as prone to human foibles as any human.

And, yet, today, millions of (intellectually inferior) theists raised in highly religious communities become atheists. Newton was such a wimp!

No, he was born in the mid-17th century. Those of us born in the later 20th century have much more information available to us then Newton did (in large part thanks to Newton himself) and have a better chance of discarding dogma with fewer negative consequences.

I expect people born in the late 21st century will look at us as trapped within our limitations, as people born in the late 22nd will look at them. The traps themselves are getting milder and easier to escape, though, and what might once have gotten one burned at the stake is now sitcom fodder, at least in the liberal democracies.

An example that nothing to do with what I said.

Feel free to clarify, since otherwise your claim that I confused science and technology is too obscure to impress.

I see that you (and Czarcasm) and some other atheists on this board are concerned about someone forcibly wedging an idea into a discussion.

And not without reason, when we see stem-cell research being stymied or the teaching of evolution being challenged on spurious grounds.

From my viewpoint, you come across as a bit paranoid.

I personally consider it part of that “eternal vigilance” stuff. I enjoy living in a secular society. Secular societies don’t just happen by magic, nor are they entirely self-sustaining. Of course for me personally, the discussion is largely academic - most of the religious battles over laws I hear about don’t take place in Canada but in the U.S. and elsewhere.

You are treating me as if I’m a fundamentalist YEC Christian. Your skills of perception are not finely honed.

I didn’t even speculate on your personal beliefs. Your arguments, however, are dressed-up but otherwise indistinct from those I’ve heard and seen from the religious. Sure, you might just be playing devil’s advocate, but you’ve gone out of your way to try to take and try to give personal offense, also a common tactic of those who argue from a fundamentalist viewpoint. Whether or not this reflects your personal beliefs isn’t really any of my concern.

[Galileo]

@Bryan_Ekers

I didn’t even speculate on your personal beliefs. Your arguments, however, are dressed-up but otherwise indistinct from those I’ve heard and seen from the religious. Sure, you might just be playing devil’s advocate, but you’ve gone out of your way to try to take and try to give personal offense, also a common tactic of those who argue from a fundamentalist viewpoint. Whether or not this reflects your personal beliefs isn’t really any of my concern.

First, I apologize for the condescending remarks. :smack:

FWIW, I am not playing devil’s advocate. I find many of the arguments far from persuasive, and I already agree with many of your core beliefs.

I brought up Newton as an example of an intelligent theist who didn’t have access to all the information. Many theists today are in the same position. Yes, you could say: The information is right here – it’s yours for the taking. But, in a practical sense, it is not available to those who lack the education or the intellectual acumen, and, as you’ve pointed out, there can be huge social pressure to continue with existing religious beliefs.

Fact is, relatively few people today know much about astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry, genetics, or formal logic. Why accept “weird” concepts like the Big Bang? Because science has proven itself by providing HDTV? Not good enough. On a day-to-day basis, better to stick with what you’ve been told (it works, doesn’t it?) and what you know.

Just as Newton couldn’t break free from theism, many people today can’t. But, I suggest that they deserve more respect than some of them get on this board. And, yes, it’s a two-way street, and, I know that it can become frustrating.

BTW, I suggest that my arguments are distinct from those you’ve heard and seen from the religious, but the subtlety is noticeable only if you are looking for it.

Kinda like looking for God … (Just kidding. ;))

Take care.

[The_Hamster_King]

@magellan01

Things had to be set in motion.

Got it. There’s no such thing as a first cause. So there’s an infinite regression of gods.

[Mijin]

@Galileo

Why accept “weird” concepts like the Big Bang?

Because such models make accurate predictions.

In the case of the big bang, it predicted the existence and temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, for starters.

Probably you know this, but it’s worth restating, as it is a common misconception that the big bang theory is untestable and/or scientists believe it only because it makes intuitive sense to them.

[Jackmannii]

@Galileo

FWIW, I am not playing devil’s advocate.

Nor am I.

I am the devil’s advocate.

[Galileo]

@Mijin

Because such models make accurate predictions.

Yes, but the point I was making is that the average person is no position to evaluate the accuracy or relevance of those predictions. Heck, as a layman who is pretty knowledgeable about cosmology, I can only rely on what scientists tell me. Not quite though: I’ve never actually talked with a scientist who has done research on the Big Bang, nor have I ever seen original evidence confirming it, or read any of the primary research. I rely on second- (and third and fourth) hand accounts, which I assume are a truthful and accurate representation of the research.

I hope that you’re able to get my point that it’s not about whether science is right and religion is wrong: It’s about whether it is reasonable to believe in God/gods in the absence of other explanations. Today, for atheists the answer is “No”. For intelligent (partly informed) theists (surrounded by other intelligent theists) the answer is probably “Yes”.

Willful ignorance is tough to argue against. The challenge then is to find some points of agreement without attempting to completely undermine a person’s entire belief system.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Galileo

I brought up Newton as an example of an intelligent theist who didn’t have access to all the information. Many theists today are in the same position. Yes, you could say: The information is right here – it’s yours for the taking. But, in a practical sense, it is not available to those who lack the education or the intellectual acumen, and, as you’ve pointed out, there can be huge social pressure to continue with existing religious beliefs.

And fortunately we live in a time when this pressure has greatly diminished and is diminishing, though this cannot be taken for granted since a resurgence is always possible, and it is not simply a lack of education or acumen that will cause it - there are Americans who honestly believe the Ten Commandments form the basis of American law (or if they don’t, that they once did and should do so again). They honestly believe a concentrated and directed “war on Christmas” is underway. They honestly believe that the theory of evolution is a lie, abortion is a sin, gay marriage is a heresy…

Sure, these people don’t represent the majority of Americans, but it’s a valid concern that the majority of Americans might feel some vague sympathy for these attitudes and play along. Certainly Fox News has proven that a sizable market for these ideas exists, and they gleefully (and profitably) both encourage and participate. I don’t know what effect, for good or ill, the 112th Congress will have. I’m not encouraged so far.

Fact is, relatively few people today know much about astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry, genetics, or formal logic. Why accept “weird” concepts like the Big Bang? Because science has proven itself by providing HDTV?

Well… yes, actually. The interaction of energy and matter that allows for HDTV (the photoelectric effect, among other phenomena) is not completely removed from the interactions of energy and matter that characterize current hypotheses about the Big Bang. It’s quite different from religious ideas that need no logical connection whatsoever, whose contradictions are casually accepted (or just selectively ignored) by followers. Why does the Book of Genesis contain separate and contradictory descriptions of Creation? Such contradictions would never fly in scientific circles - there’d be people dedicating their lives to reconcile them.

As it is, the physics behind HDTV do not conflict with the physics behind the Big Bang. The issue of why the Big Bang occurred… I’m okay with leaving that unknown for now.

Just as Newton couldn’t break free from theism, many people today can’t. But, I suggest that they deserve more respect than some of them get on this board. And, yes, it’s a two-way street, and, I know that it can become frustrating.

Well, certainly more people can than during Newton’s time. And define “respect”. I’m not breaking into anyone’s house to tear down their Christmas trees or menorahs or shrines to Ba’al or whatever. What additional “respect” do you think is required? This board is for public discussions. If they chose to discuss their views publicly, I’ll feel no reservation about discussing my views of their views, and they’re free to discuss their views of my views of their views. Is this lacking in “respect” ? Please define the term.

BTW, I suggest that my arguments are distinct from those you’ve heard and seen from the religious, but the subtlety is noticeable only if you are looking for it.

Why not just save time and spell it out?

[sisu]

@Czarcasm

When a stranger tells me he has an invisible pooka friend named “Harvey”, I don’t bother with “counterarguments”-I just tell him I disbelieve and move on, unless he has some evidence for his position of course.
When a group of people tell me that they have an invisible friend that can grant wishes, I don’t bother with counterarguments-I just disbelieve and move on.
When a large group of people tell me that their invisible friend created the whole world…no, the whole galaxy…no, the whole universe…no, he is the whole universe!..and…and…and you can’t find him 'cause he lives outside the universe!!-I don’t bother with counterargument(where the hell would you even start?), I disbelieve, and wonder why anyone would think that adding impossibility upon impossibility would make a claim more believable, and not less.

Czarcasm, what you say sits with me perfectly. I cannot point to proof that anything I believe beyond the physical is true. It can’t be done, it can only be experienced.

The idea of some bloke sitting up there making decisions and judging us is simply a primitive way of trying to understand the burning question of “why?”

Now you say there is no why, only an is. This will always be a bone of contention between us.

[sisu]

@Bryan_Ekers

And sure, it would be nice to be able to count on the support of politically moderate liberal religious types… if we could. It wouldn’t be necessary to rally against fundamentalist types if we could expect the moderate majority to stop them dead each and every time they make one of their ridiculous demands, but the moderate majority is fully capable of letting nonsense pass through inertia or ignorance or even tacit approval.

And by the way, what truths have been discovered through religion, for the third time?

You can rely on this person and probably most of us, but only if you accept that not all spiritual/religious people are balmy. By accepting that people can live with something your brain can’t does not make us any less intelligent or naive than you.

If you want to look at my poster child for this liberal movement then look at Ghandi or Sprong. Two men who have strong religious views and balanced with a modern mind. They both have rallied against those things that you detest in organised religion, control, hatred and discrimination.

Truth, good question and one that has not been answered yet. The biggies always take longer to resolve.

The question arises, “Why do I consider myself a Christian etc” The religion is the humanization and codification of what the culture at the time thought was right. If I am born into a certain culture then I am drawn towards the religion that sits with me best. Now that does not stop me from pursuing a more tolerant and liberal interpretation of the dogma, in fact that is what a lot of us do. The rituals etc give us comfort and a framework to explore our being.

If you want an answer to what god is then we are going to struggle. At best if you want to experience god, practice selfless love at the expense of self love. It is hard but if you are open you will feel it.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/messageboards.aspx

[Galileo]

@Bryan_Ekers

Why not just save time and spell it out?

Do you mean R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

It’s okay.

You missed my point about HDTV, and I don’t care about the 112th Congress, Fox News, or contradictions in Genesis. It seems that you’re trying to enlist me in some war against fundamentalism. Not interested.

I came into this thread to express my viewpoint.

I’m done for now.
Bye.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@sisu

You can rely on this person and probably most of us, but only if you accept that not all spiritual/religious people are balmy.

Can’t I just rely on your self of enlightened self-interest telling you that President Palin wouldn’t be good for America?

Anyway, if anyone else thinks they got Galileo’s point about HDTV, I’d appreciate some advice.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Galileo

I’ve never actually talked with a scientist who has done research on the Big Bang, nor have I ever seen original evidence confirming it, or read any of the primary research. I rely on second- (and third and fourth) hand accounts, which I assume are a truthful and accurate representation of the research.

I could say the same thing about Mt. Kilimanjaro. I’ve neither seen it myself, nor (so far as I know) spoken directly with someone who has. My belief that it’s a real mountain and not an elaborate fiction created by Ernest Hemingway is dependent upon a chain of trusted intermediaries.

However, part of the reason that I trust those intermediaries is because nothing (other than laziness) prevents me from personally verifying the correctness of their information. Anyone can buy and ticket and fly to Tanzania and see for himself if its a real mountain or not. So it’s very unlikely for Mt. Kilimanjaro to be a hoax or a delusion. It’s too easy to debunk.

Similarly, I trust what scientists say about the Big Bang because I know that debunking a well-known theory is a great way to get ahead if you’re a scientist. If anyone suspected that “Kilimanjaro wasn’t really there” there would be dozens of researchers jumping on planes to prove it. Since that’s not happening, I feel comfortable accepting the current scientific consensus as being reasonably accurate.

[fumster]

@magellan01

Oh, really? Please explain how quantum physics negates what I said. And please be specific.

You said that “everything we are aware of is the result of a cause. Stuff had to come from somewhere. Things had to be set in motion”. At the particle level things don’t travel in just one path, crashing into each other and rebounding in a predictable manner. Instead, their movement is random and not predetermined. Secondly, particles can and do just come from nowhere. In the vacuum of space, particles spontaneously come into existence. This is both predicted by theory and verified through observation.